Monday, December 19, 2011

All civilizations go through strong and weak phases, and some of them fall. But no civilization in history exploded on a global scale within the space of a single century as modern Europe has done.

The European percentage of the world’s population has plummeted within the same period of time. Native Europeans are currently being displaced at a breathtaking pace in their own homelands, at least in the western half of the Continent. Western authorities and ruling elites are not very concerned about this fact, however. They are too busy worrying about carbon dioxide and what the weather will be like in the year 2089.

A century ago, European scientists had established the physical reality of atoms and molecules and were working out the inner structure of the atom itself. Innovative underground railways such as the London Tube or the Paris Metro were being copied elsewhere, from Budapest and Berlin to New York City and Moscow. With trams, trains, cars, motorcycles and buses, European inventions changed the face of every major city in the world.

Europe was more powerful than any single previous civilization had ever been in the history of mankind, and the first one to have a truly global impact. Other nations respected and sometimes feared European power and dynamism.

One hundred years later, Muslims and others prey upon European weakness, while Asians and Americans fear that the escalating debt crisis in Europe could drag down their own economies. From being the unquestioned center of the world economy, serious observers now question whether European civilization will even survive the twenty-first century in recognizable form.Conditions are such that the respected historian Walter Laqueur can publish a book with the title The Last Days of Europe: Epitaph for an Old Continent.

Western Civilization will most likely enter a period of great turbulence in the near future and will probably not exist in its present form by the second half of this century. However, just as the optimists underestimated the calamities witnessed during the twentieth century that severely weakened European civilization, the pessimists today may underestimate the reservoirs of strength that still exist in the same civilization.

Europe has ancient roots that are not yet fully uprooted. Rebirths are messy affairs, and the European ones especially so. Perhaps out of the current troubles, a new era of European culture will dawn, a new European Renaissance.

For a complete archive of Fjordman’s writings, see the multi-index listing in the Fjordman Files.

"Perhaps out of the current troubles, a new era of European culture will dawn, a new European Renaissance."

I only come to GOV because I believe there will be a renaissance. When the totalitarians are finally forced into submission, that which rises isn't going to look very "European" though. We'd best get used to some cultural fusion or we'll be flummoxed.

But how can we win?

The forces that toil to break down civilization gain faith under the vile precepts of pop internationalism. I submit that any potent resistance to the the current internationalist movement will likewise have to be an international movement. This is hard to understand because, in these times, most internationalism is the totalitarian's game. We must create a revolutionary, pro-nationalistic, culture-preserving kind of internationalism, one that supports independent nations, both in thought and form.

PPopular western culture teaches us to rest on our laurels and let the rest of the world catch up to us. This has caused a cultural malaise wherein we have nothing to live for. We have even lost our desire to procreate.

I’m not sure this is as much about being invaded or pushed out so much as it is about creating a vacuum within Western Culture in which other peoples seek to fill, to their benefit, without care for our detriment.

In effect, the West isn't exploding so much as it is imploding. But either way, the demise of western civilization is the consequence.

"while Asians and Americans fear that the escalating debt crisis in Europe could drag down their own economies."

WT..? Come again?

With more than a touch of irony one could say that the US has nothing to fear, since its own economy is best described as "living dead", so twilight indeed, and a very worrying prelude to a future when the Asians are no longer prepared to own the gargantuan US debt. Somehow, somewhere in the near future, the Fedishist party will come to an end.

Europe's days are not numbered by islam but by the contagium that is the EU. Europe's resurrection, à la the Arab phoenix, is not assured by the end of islamization but by the renaissance of Christianity. Kill the EU and fill the churches.

"We must create a revolutionary, pro-nationalistic, culture-preserving kind of internationalism, one that supports independent nations, both in thought and form.", you say.

Second that 100%!

Perhaps, depending on how you look at it, this is exactly what's happening in America right now, to the great upset of the bipartisan US elites, their lamestream media lapdogs and the financial fascists, i.e. monetary planners at the Fed.

Europe has ancient roots that are not yet fully uprooted. Rebirths are messy affairs, and the European ones especially so. Perhaps out of the current troubles, a new era of European culture will dawn, a new European Renaissance.

Well said. It will not be neat, pretty, or easy, but Europe does need another renaissance, a move back towards its roots.

You New: You seem to be referring to a sort of Hegelian dialectic, with a thesis and its antithesis and finally a synthesis between the two opposites. Many Marxists think this way, but I personally don't want to have a "synthesis" with the barbarian cultures we are being flooded with now. I see little to gain from this. My Germanic ancestors had their flaws, but they also had many virtues that could form the basis for a fruitful synthesis with the Greco-Roman heritage. Today's barbarians are very different, culturally and genetically, and bring much harm but little of value to European civilization.

Some observers champion the idea that we need a pan-European supertribe the way Muslims have their Umma, but perhaps this is not the most suitable model for us. If we do get a new European Renaissance this must primarily be based on a resurgence of our own ancestral values and a reaffirmation of our own cultural roots. If we want to learn from somebody else we should learn from successful cultures and reject the current Western fascination with failed cultures such as the African or the Islamic ones.

Writer Takuan Seiyo likes to point out that there are two true high cultures in the world: The European and the East Asian civilizations. This happens to correspond to those two regions on the planet where you can find a general population with a mean IQ of at least 100. Yet one of these two high cultures is currently in the process of self-destructing; the other one is not. Yes, Europeans have made a number of advances that the Orientals never did, but we also make mistakes that they don't do and never would have done. It is very arrogant of us to assume that there is nothing we can learn from them. The Chinese did that mistake when they first encountered Europeans in the modern era. We should not repeat their mistake.

Those who don't wish us well want us to be a rootless mass of colorblind workers and consumers, the way the USA partly already is. We are currently in the midst of the Age of Weakness and Betrayal. We will soon enter an Age of Chaos and from there on will proceed either to an Age of Roots and Revival or to an Age of Disappearance. I firmly believe that European peoples have reservoirs of strength and potential that are still waiting to be tapped. We can survive this and flourish once more, if only we find the will to do so. Disappearance is not inevitable, but it is important to understand that Europe is now so weak that this worst-case scenario represents a real possibility. It doesn't have to happen, but it could happen.

I cannot foresee how a new generation of European civilization will look like, but I believe we must break with the underlying concept of "progress towards universal egalitarianism." A big question is whether this goal is compatible with retaining Christianity, a religion that has universalism at its very core. If that is possible then I am personally fine with retaining Christianity, but it remains to be seen whether this is possible and it should anyway be of secondary importance. The primary goal must be to preserve a large homeland overwhelmingly reserved for people of European demographic stock.

I don't think we can go directly back to the age of nation-states just as we had three or four generations ago. Too much has changed since then, and we need to move forward. The EU is the wrong answer to the right question. We probably need some kind of larger European cooperation, but the EU is flawed in nearly every aspect of how it is actually designed. Nevertheless, even staunch critics of the EU from very different viewpoints such as Bat Ye'or and Guillaume Faye note that the most positive side-effect of the EU is that it has taught Europeans to think in terms of "Europe" as a greater entity, not just their own smaller nation. This ideal can be useful when the time comes, provided that it is channeled in other directions and properly utilized.

"[..] the most positive side-effect of the EU is that it has taught Europeans to think in terms of "Europe" as a greater entity, not just their own smaller nation. This ideal can be useful when the time comes [..]"

Fjordman is perceptive as always but fails fundamentally to advance the cause of freedom by applying a collectivist filter to history and current world events. Of the situation between China and Europe he says;

"Yet one of these two high cultures is currently in the process of self-destructing; the other one is not. Yes, Europeans have made a number of advances that the Orientals never did, but we also make mistakes that they don't do and never would have done."

The fundamental error here is in thinking that the rejection of individualist philosophy (a primarily European development) is somehow a mistake for Europe but not for China (there is also a mistake in asserting that this is characteristic of all Asia, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan all retain a healthy appreciation of individualist philosophy even if they do not fully embrace it). Yes, the nation of China is poised to attain a position of global dominance in the wake of the collapse of Europe and the U.S., but I would still rather (as an individual) be living in Europe torn by persistent civil wars in ten years (keeping in mind that the racial character of these wars wouldn't be exactly felicitous to me personally) than be living under Chinese rule if the Party should succeed in their ambitions for conquest.

The European culture will endure when the people of Europe finally decline to go into their graves without protest. Chinese dominance may well dictate a steep decline in the standard of living in Europe, but the Chinese will not bother to attempt a direct conquest of Europe itself which leaves the actual fighting to be between Islamists and native Europeans. This will no doubt be a very ugly fight, but it is one that the indigenous peoples of Europe will win eventually. The question is what kind of European culture they will have rallied under.

Fjordman says;

"I cannot foresee how a new generation of European civilization will look like, but I believe we must break with the underlying concept of "progress towards universal egalitarianism." A big question is whether this goal is compatible with retaining Christianity, a religion that has universalism at its very core. If that is possible then I am personally fine with retaining Christianity, but it remains to be seen whether this is possible and it should anyway be of secondary importance. The primary goal must be to preserve a large homeland overwhelmingly reserved for people of European demographic stock."

And this is falling prey to the most tragic error of collectivist thinking. Just as I personally would rather live in a nation struggling for existence where the people had at least the idea of individualism (that the value and dignity of a person was determined by their individual actions and choices rather than by memberships in the "right" collectives) rather than a mighty empire where such ideas had been abolished, I submit that the European people will be better off with more individualism even if it means some setbacks nationally. Now, I personally believe that almost all of the decline of the European nations has been as a direct result of the rejection of genuine individualism and the embrace of collectivism. The outrages of "multi-culturalism" offend our reason and feeling of human dignity because they judge individuals on something other than their own merits more than because native Europeans happen to be getting the sharp end of the stick. We all, I think, agree that if a just law were impartially applied without respect to race, the Muslims would soon find that they had better assimilate as best they can and let those who are unable to do so be deported. The essential reason for believing that European culture is better than Islamic culture is because individual Europeans behave and live better than individual Muslims.

Which makes me regard the statement that "universal egalitarianism" is the problem as being based on an essentially collectivist view. If we hold individuals equally accountable for their personal actions before the law, then cultures (which affect human behavior in different ways) will not come out equal. So on the collectivist view "universal egalitarianism" is not at all compatible with the rule of law and impartially applied personal accountability. But this does not at all take into account that the Christian view is an arch-enemy of collectivism. It is Christianity that provided the impetus to discard the idea that men could or should be judged on the basis of their ancestry or membership in some group and instead embrace the idea that each individual was to be judged on the basis of personal actions and choices.

In the collectivist view, the important thing about judging individuals based on their own actions is that it reveals differences between cultures and races. But the individualist doesn't care about that at all, the question of which nation or race or culture is the best is a matter of merely intellectual interest compared with the judgment of a person according to individual actions and choices.

Now I may be wrong about the degree to which the development of a political and economic order based on individualism contributed to the rise of Europe, it may be that living in a colder clime had far more impact on the genetically determined intelligence/industry/prudence potential of the European races, or that the pagan roots and primitive mythology of the culture are even more inspirational than my own literary taste for them and their derived themes would suggest. But I still really have to assert that the most important element to preserve is not the race or the ancient myths of Europe but the freedom to choose one's own way in life and be personally responsible for the outcome.

Likewise, the individualist cares nothing for the survival or preeminence of any nation, race, or culture, but only about what that means for an individual living as part of that nation, race, or culture. I don't care how "great" an empire China manages to assemble in the coming decades, I have absolutely no desire to live in it if it is hostile to the individual as an individual or especially as an individualist (of which Christians are a particularly important type). This isn't because I regard the races or mythology of China to be inferior in any way, I wouldn't want to live in a European nation that failed to uphold individualism either.

Contrarily, I have no problem with living in a tiny and relatively powerless nation where the individual is respected and permitted to be an individualist without penalty. I hope that some of the states may be such nations in the wake of the breakup of the United States, and am willing to do more than just hope in the event. I've already staked my life on it, after all. The future will see what other resources I can scrape together for the defense of individual freedom where I live (and world-wide, it is Christmas after all).

Ten thousand Chinese become Christians each day, according to a stunning report by the National Catholic Reporter's veteran correspondent John Allen, and 200 million Chinese may comprise the world's largest concentration of Christians by mid-century, and the largest missionary force in history. [1] If you read a single news article about China this year, make sure it is this one."

In the West we are doing our best to destroy our Christian heritage but in China, Chinese intellectuals are coming around to the view that it is precisely this heritage that has made the West so successful.

Former editor of the Sunday Telegraph, Dominic Lawson, in a review in the Sunday Times of Niall Ferguson's new book, ‘Civilisation: The West and the Rest’, carries a quote from a member of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences in which he tries to account for the success of the West, to date.

He said: “One of the things we were asked to look into was what accounted for the success, in fact, the pre-eminence of the West all over the world.

“We studied everything we could from the historical, political, economic, and cultural perspective. At first, we thought it was because you had more powerful guns than we had.

“Then we thought it was because you had the best political system. Next we focused on your economic system.

“But in the past twenty years, we have realised that the heart of your culture is your religion: Christianity. That is why the West is so powerful.

“The Christian moral foundation of social and cultural life was what made possible the emergence of capitalism and then the successful transition to democratic politics. We don’t have any doubt about this.”

Note the source. It isn't from a religious leader, or some religious think-tank. The Chinese Academy of Social Sciences is an instrument of the Chinese Communist government which spends a not inconsiderable amount of time and money persecuting Christians and is officially atheistic.

If this is the conclusion it has come to, maybe Europe needs to reconsider whether it mightn't be an idea to encourage rather than eradicate Christianity.

Incidentally, just to drive home the point, Lawson also refers to this data point in Ferguson's book: Wenzhou, the Chinese city which is rated as the most entrepreneurial in the country, is also home to 1,400 churches.

Lawson refers to a quote in the book from a prominent Wenzhou business leader, a Mr Hanping Zhang, who argues that “an absence of trust had been one of the main factors holding China back; but he feels he can trust his fellow Christians because he knows that they will be honest in their dealings with him”.

It has long been accepted that Christianity is one of the core elements of Western civilisation; it is too little understood that it is also one of the secrets of the stunning success of that civilisation."

Internationalist movements are going to be involved in negotiating the direction of our cultures and nations. I don't see how you can think otherwise, it's not optional.

I'd much prefer if the good internationalists, like old NATO or The Gate of Vienna Blog folks were followed and revered and had impact rather than the UN/EU/American Left/Council of Churches/Alarmist Taxer contingencies. That's all I'm saying, Fjordman.

Either we are going to form international matrices and promote ourselve, or the socialists will have control of the big game and will crush our little game. Their team is in shape and running up and down the field, our side hasn't much shown up yet.

Race and Culture:

It is a myth to think that, simply because China has a billion-plus genetic Chinese, their culture is intact. And the same with India. We shouldn't confuse genetics and culture. The Chinese people are intact. The Chinese culture is dead. As a doornail.

Asia is far, far ahead of Europe in the death of it's cultures. (Not it's genetic peoples.) Indian culture started dying thousands of years ago, this can be seen in the Upanisads and Vedas; China started dying a thousand years ago from Confusianism. Confusianism has been glamorized so few know how it killed China's culture and Taoism and prepared it to fit into it's latest garb, a European suit -- communism.

You're more likely to learn the Tao Teh Ching from a New Zelander than a Chinaman. Look at the links from Escape Velocity up this very thread.Why are people there starving for Christianity? It's a cultural hole.

I do have to say that, while any hint of the collectivist mindset alarms me philosophically, I am cognizant that, when dealing with the movements of even hundreds of individuals, let alone hundreds of millions, we have to resort to categorization as an analytical tool.

To an extent, this makes collectivist thinking an inherent danger to any social scientist. While I am not hesitant to condemn frivolous collectivist thinking, I also strive to correct when it seems the error might have had an innocent origin in the necessities of thinking of people as groups rather than individuals.

And unfortunately I'm up against the limit of "a few lines tops". I suppose I'll close by saying that the important thing is to ensure that one always thinks of the group as being a tool, subordinate in purpose and meaning to the individual.

Thank you so much for obliging me ;) Of course, there's a subtle difference whether someone uses broad categorizations that are sometimes inevitable. But the remarks about Europe-think were of a different kind. The opinion transpired that somehow it has been a good thing that people in Europe became more used to the superstate, albeit a superstate gone haywire.

BTW, I haven't seen any further explanation from Fjordman yet, and don't expect it forthcoming, as to what precisely it would be that Western civilization can learn from the Chinese.

I don't expect it to be about sound economic advice, perhaps something akin to what we could even "learn" from Pan-Arabism, for I expect Fjordman to slightly admire that collective too, a heady brew of the ethnic supertribe mixed with oriental style socialism. Now translate that to Euro-nationalism, with of course the added bonus of a respectable mean IQ.

The Chinese have actually accomplished something very significant, though it isn't a new idea at all. See, the problem with modern collectivist ideologies is that they tend to abolish the principle of advancement by merit. The modern collectivists were inventors of integrated moral/ethical/political/economic systems.

But the old collectivisms were organic and evolved. They included features which recognized that to efficiently utilize individuals, you had to test them and deploy them according to their demonstrated abilities. The Chinese have recognized this and that is why they are able to have (or at least simulate) a working economy.

The ancient collectivisms are superior in functionality to the modern collectivisms...a point that the Fascists implicitly recognized by drawing on the model of ancient Rome. If Europe wants to draw on its native ancient collectivisms, they do exist (and are quite powerful).

But I still think that the record of Christian individualism says something really significant about the power of individualism compared to any collectivism, no matter how organically evolved. Christianity conquered Rome, the European paganisms, and has begun to conquer Asia. It is what Islam most fears, and with good cause. Part of that is because of the enormous mythical significance of the suffering God, who is killed and rises again. But the various collectivist versions of this myth never had the power that Christianity showed as an individualist philosophy.

Ultimately, individualism is superior to collectivism because it respects the fundamental truth about humans...that their willingness to sacrifice themselves for the sake of the collective is much weaker than their willingness to sacrifice the collective for themselves. Collectivists regard this as a problem to be overcome...individualists recognize it as a strength which enables humans to survive and thrive against terrible odds.

That's why, ultimately, individualism will always defeat collectivism in the end. Even if a collectivist nation defeats all its external foes, the individuals within it will bring it down eventually. Only an individualist society can be strengthened rather than destroyed by the individuals which compose it.

Why do we need a singular strategy for Europeans? Those of us who feel that a greater degree of tribalism is needed to preserve the European people can do things our way, and those loyal to European individualism can continue doing their thing. Individualists don't have to follow ethnic/race nationalists. We can go our separate ways and may the best strategy win. :)

Unfortunately, collectivism is ultimately incompatible with individualism, if you take it very seriously (and if you want to use one collectivism to fight another collectivism, you must take it very seriously indeed). The central problem for collectivism is to find ways to get people to put the interests of the collective ahead of their individual interests. This means that a central feature of every collectivism must be to break down the natural individuality of humans (who tend to put their personal good above the collective good).

Individualists, even if generally friendly to the collective a given collectivism values, will inherently undermine the collectivism. You cannot combine an individualist and collectivist strategy for preserving the same collective. Individualism recognizes that the collective deserves respect and defense because it serves the needs of the individuals who compose it, and they seek to enlist the support of the individuals by appealing to their individual reasons for supporting the collective. Collectivists cannot afford to allow this kind of thinking, the collective has to be set up as the end in itself, not subordinated to the reasons that individuals might find it useful to their own ends.

At the heart of the dispute is whether you will base society on conditioning humans to act contrary to their strongest instincts and moral impulses, or whether you will arrange society so as to let people serve each other by serving themselves.

The most perfect model of a collectivist model opposed to an individualist model is the free market as opposed to the command economy. Ultimately, the two are completely incompatible, even though they are concerned with the exact same object, the efficient creation and distribution of wealth to ensure the continued survival of a people at a reasonable standard of living. Every concession to the free market reduces the ability of the command economy to effectively plan the economy, every concession to the command economy reduces the freedom of individuals in the marketplace to effectively address their own needs without interference.

It is not a question on which collectivists can afford to "agree to disagree" in the end...the entire program of collectivism will fail if you allow dissent. The collectivist must always resort to stamping out individualism if they are to succeed. Individualists do not need to stamp out collectivism if believed and practiced privately...but they cannot allow collectivism to take power if they are to survive.

"The Chinese have recognized this and that is why they are able to have (or at least simulate) a working economy."

Well, if you look at how their economy is still centrally planned in spite of appearances (simulate indeed), time will surely tell. But let me tell you now, that it is my estimate that the Chinese economy will collapse within the next five years. Meanwhile, the numbers put out by the regime can't ever be trusted.

Certainly the Chinese economy is an exercise in fraud on a grand scale. But the target was always the Western nations, particularly the U.S., who were led to believe that China was moving towards "economic interdependence" which would preclude military aggression.

Of course, this is a stupid theory in the first place. The crippling effect of some kind of economic dependence is as frequent a cause for nations to go to war as anything else. But in application to China it was even more stupid. The only thing that China is getting from their "economic engagement" with the West is a massive pile of worthless paper...which they have amassed for the express purpose of dumping at a critical point to demonstrate once and for all just how worthless it is.

Their plan is to wait for the right moment, dump the dollar and U.S. treasuries, and then begin a program of military conquest combined with imposition of strict 'wartime' controls on political/information freedoms. Of course those watching China are mostly under the impossible delusion that the Chinese have some intention of doing this with their (relatively) minuscule navy. How exactly Beijing managed to sell that one I have no idea.

It is certainly true that the Chinese economic situation cannot survive the collapse of the dollar. Conversely, if the dollar were to be salvaged and disaster averted, the Chinese could easily enough use some of their ludicrous stockpile as a buffer by permitting more imports while they restructured their economy towards the needs of the people rather than emphasizing exports to such an insane degree.

But my sense is that they are almost ready to throw the dice. Indeed, economic numbers aside, their demographic problems may admit of no other solution than a full-scale war on multiple fronts.

Chiu Chun-Ling.

P.S. actually, there are other solutions that could have been applied to the demographic problems China is facing. But Beijing has generally imposed 'solutions' that seem almost designed to worsen rather than alleviate these problems. Some of this is the normal block-headed stupidity of any planned society, but I think at least some of it is deliberate.

Islamic nations rejoice! You're about to find out what it's like when the shoe's on the other foot. May you enjoy it.

That is an amazing article about China. What strikes me as sad is that China feels the need to copy the West instead of designing its own great cities.

What strikes me as dangerous is the question as to whether the Chinese are copying NYC because the Chinese plan to destroy the real one some day?!

What strikes me as comical is that everyone raves about the high IQ of Asians but the Asians are just copying the mid-IQ white people. High IQ indeed! How precisely is the high Asian IQ translating into unique real life accomplishments?!

I'm sure that, in some dusty corner of the obscure contingency plans of the Communist Party, there are carefully considered strategies for destroying New York.

But the main path has always been to demoralize rather than destroy the Western nations. The building craze is quite simple, it is a way to inflate economic activity numbers without just throwing away too great a percentage of the work and resources put into it. And Beijing is already permitting those prices to fall back into the market range...that will curb the impetus for new building quite a bit while allowing people to actually move into and utilize what they've already built.

In the short term, this causes the appearance of an alarming drop in economic value...but the Chinese people are moving into those new houses while Americans are being forced out of their own. It's really just more clever strategy to worsen the global market economy while immediately benefiting the restless Chinese underclass.

As for IQ...it's really innovation that matters. The leadership of China regard innovation as dangerous and destabilizing, so they have deliberately adopted a policy of exporting innovators to other counties, allow those countries to suffer the results of those innovations, then select the innovations that proved 'useful' (from the perspective of providing ways to consolidate the authority of the Party) and then import those (with the help of their exported innovators).

actually, there are other solutions that could have been applied to the demographic problems China is facing. But Beijing has generally imposed 'solutions' that seem almost designed to worsen rather than alleviate these problems. Some of this is the normal block-headed stupidity of any planned society, but I think at least some of it is deliberate.

«ROME, November 9, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Europe’s ‘other’ parliament has passed a resolution that calls on member states to introduce legislation and clinical guidelines that prohibit sex-selective abortion and embryo destruction.

The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, (PACE), Europe’s oldest pan-national body, passed Resolution 1829 (2011) last month.

In the resolution, which was put forward by Swiss socialist Doris Stump, PACE denounces “social and family pressure” that encourages women to abort female children as “a form of psychological violence.”»

"Perhaps out of the current troubles, a new era of European culture will dawn, a new European Renaissance."

This is a pretty interesting statement. Are you looking for it, Fjordman? Then you would have a woman who cooks and washes for you, so you can play the real man and protect her from the evil wild world out there. A world in which patriotism and Patriarchy prevails and the evil feminist will be burnt at the stake.

Keep dreaming.

"Western Civilization will most likely enter a period of great turbulence in the near future and will probably not exist in its present form by the second half of this century."

What kind of predication is that, please? Compare the Europe of today with 50 years ago. Of course it is no longer the same (thank god!) and it is quite natural that we will be completely different in the coming 50 years. This is called "evolution“if you never heard about it.

Dramatize and magnify problems lacing fears (which you obviously do best), it will not induce people to no longer believe in democracy and an open world, or to get rid of feminism and gender equality, because the evil feminists are guilty of destroying, our dear, formerly oh, nothing less than perfect Europe. Women to blame, for being harassed and raped in their own countries by strange men, because they are stupid enough, to want to be free and independent, rather than to rely on male protection, it won’t help you either.

It is sadly true, that our politicians don’t want to acknowledge many problems of immigration. And it is true, that Islamization could pose a real threat to our values. That Europeans put up with everything and have no more respect for their own culture, merely not to be portrayed as a racist, the dissatisfaction of Europeans will increase even more. And Feminists are not always doing anything perfect, just as men have their faults.

But to take advantage of the weakness of our society to "form" the world according to your own discretion by letting people believe, that anything they fought for life, it only led and still will lead to nothing else but suffering all the devil misery of the world – this is disgraceful, it's hurtful, it's ridiculous, it is unacceptable.

Your essays are neither very realistic nor particularly clever. What you are doing is in the truest sense of the word >brainwashing<. For being censored by the media, then not only because of political correctness, but mainly because they have seen you through- you need to know this. The few fans that you (still) have - are sexists, racists, patriotic macho pigs and mentally ill mass murderers like Breivik, or even disgruntled people who simply want to be heard.

The people who still believe in the values and beauty of our culture are struggling to maintain it. And you and your peers would do us a big favor if you would stop writing silly things and trying to destroy everything we live for.